Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan has rejected the opposition's motion to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, stating the allegations do not meet the constitutional threshold for removal proceedings.
Key Points
- Rajya Sabha Chairman rejected the opposition's motion to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, stating the allegations lacked sufficient proof of misbehaviour.
- Some of the charges against the Chief Election Commissioner are already under judicial review or have been decided, making them unsuitable for removal proceedings.
- The Chairman stated that the opposition's notice did not demonstrate 'misbehaviour' as required by Articles 324(5) and 124(4) of the Constitution.
- The Chairman rebutted each of the opposition's seven charges against Kumar, including allegations of partisan conduct and obstruction of electoral fraud investigations.
- The motion to remove the CEC was the first of its kind and was supported by multiple opposition parties, including Congress, Trinamool Congress, and DMK.
Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan, in his order rejecting the notice by the opposition to move a motion for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, stated that while the allegations are relevant for political debate, they do not prima facie meet the high constitutional bar for removal proceedings.
In his order, Radhakrishnan said he finds that the allegations lack proofs necessary to constitute misbehaviour which establishes a prima facie case for removal of the CEC.
"Some charges involve matters already decided or currently under judicial review. While these allegations are relevant for political debate, they do not prima facie meet the high constitutional bar for removal proceedings," he said.
Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Monday rejected separate notices from the opposition to move a motion for the removal of Kumar from his post.
The opposition had in March submitted the notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman against the CEC, listing seven charges, including alleged 'partisan and discriminatory conduct in office', 'deliberate obstruction of investigation of electoral fraud' and 'mass disenfranchisement'.
In separate orders, the Speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman refused to admit the notices moved under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, read with other relevant constitutional and statutory provisions.
In his order rejecting the notice by Opposition members, Radhakrishnan said the notice does not demonstrate "misbehaviour" as envisaged by Articles 324(5) and 124(4) of the Constitution.
"Therefore, the prima-facie requirements for admitting this notice of Motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, have not been met. Against this backdrop, having considered the notice of Motion and the existing constitutional and statutory provisions, I am of the firm opinion that the notice of Motion does not deserve to be admitted. Accordingly, I refuse to admit the notice of Motion," he said.
Chairman's Rebuttal of Charges Against CEC
The Chairman also gave a point-by-point rebuttal of the opposition's charges against Kumar in his order.
"The first charge alleges that the appointment of Shri Gyanesh Kumar as the Chief Election Commissioner was compromised and tainted as the constitutional validity of the selection process for his appointment provided under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 is itself under challenge and pending consideration before the Supreme Court of India," Radhakrishnan noted.
These allegations, even if presumed to be factually correct, do not amount to any act of misbehavior attributable to the Chief Election Commissioner, the Chairman ruled.
Noting that second charge relates to statement allegedly made by Chief Election Commissioner during a press briefing concerning allegations of irregularities in preparation of electoral rolls, Radhakrishnan said the allegations, on their face do not appear to be falling within the meaning of 'misbehaviour' for which a constitutional functionary can be subjected to the process of his removal.
Rebutting the third charge about deliberate obstruction on investigation into electoral fraud, the chairman said it is evident that the issue concerning disclosure of electoral data in machine-readable format was considered by the Supreme Court, and the Election Commission had acted in due compliance with the directions issued therein.
On the opposition's fourth charge relating to Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar, Radhakrishnan said it would be wholly inappropriate to treat issues currently under active judicial consideration as constituting evidence of misbehaviour on the part of the Chief Election Commissioner for the purposes of his removal proceedings.
Rebutting the fifth charge relating to nationwide expansion of SIR and purported political consequences of such action, Radhakrishnan said the impugned assertions, being inherently speculative and conjectural, do not, prima facie, meet the threshold required to establish "misbehaviour".
On the sixth charge regarding contempt and non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directions, the chairman said that any alleged deviation from such directions is appropriately addressed through the court's established contempt jurisdiction.
"In this backdrop, the present charge fails to disclose any prima facie case of 'misbehaviour'," he said in his ruling.
On the seventh charge alleging a failure on the part of the Election Commission to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity following the appointment of Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner, Radhakrishnan said, "In the absence of concrete particulars or substantiated evidence demonstrating deviation from constitutional or statutory obligations, such assertions fails in the test of prima facie instance of 'misbehaviour'."
Opposition Parties Involved
The signatories to the notices included the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Left parties, which are all part of the opposition Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), besides the Aam Aadmi Party, which is no longer formally in the alliance.
Some Independent MPs had also signed the notices.
This was the first time a notice was moved seeking the removal of the CEC.
